Komdamudi Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Komdamudi Chandra Sekhar Rao Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the 2nd respondent (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad) to adjudicate and dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2002 on merits, as per the Division Bench judgment dated 20.03.2019 in W.A.No.1357 of 2014 & batch, in accordance with law and in conformity with principles of natural justice, giving reasonable opportunity to all concerned, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from receipt of copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the 2nd respondent (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad) should be directed to dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2002, pending since 2002, expeditiously on merits in accordance with the Division Bench judgment dated 20.03.2019 in W.A.No.1357 of 2014 & batch.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the facts, submissions, the Division Bench judgment dated 20.03.2019 in W.A.No.1357 of 2014 & batch, and the petitioner's plea that justice delayed is justice denied, the Writ Petition is disposed of upon consent of all learned counsel on record, directing the 2nd respondent (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad) to adjudicate and dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2002, dated 17.05.2005, pending before it, as per the said Division Bench judgment, on merits, in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal's adjudication of I.D.No.18 of 2002 shall be in conformity with principles of natural justice by giving reasonable opportunity to all concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Surepalli Nanda, J., 01.07.2025), W.P. No. 29379 of 2021: A messenger of State Bank of India, Ponnur branch (appointed 01.05.1986, terminated 01.04.1997, claiming over 240 days of continuous service in each relevant calendar year), litigated his dismissal through Labour Court, Guntur, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) (failure report), and I.D.No.18 of 2002 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was clubbed with a batch and dismissed on 17.05.2005. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6470 of 2006, by common order dated 23.06.2014, set aside the award and directed re-engagement and consideration for regularization; in W.A.No.1357 of 2014 & batch the High Court of Telangana, by order dated 20.03.2019, directed independent adjudication by the Tribunal within five months. With the case still unheard due to administrative and procedural delays, and counsel confining relief to expeditious disposal (respondents not disputing), the Court disposed of the writ petition upon consent, directing the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad to adjudicate and dispose of I.D.No.18 of 2002 on merits, as per the Division Bench judgment dated 20.03.2019, in accordance with law and natural justice, expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders passed in I.D.No.18 of 2002 (common award, clubbed with a batch and dismissed) of Respondent No. 2, which the petitioner prayed to have set aside as arbitrary and illegal; at hearing, counsel confined relief to expeditious disposal of the said I.D. by the Tribunal.¶29
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (Respondent No. 2) · 17.05.2005
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed as messenger in State Bank of India, Ponnur branch on 01.05.1986 and continued in service until termination on 01.04.1997.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's claim that he completed more than 240 days of continuous service in each relevant calendar year prior to termination.¶33
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the termination, petitioner initially approached Labour Court, Guntur, later withdrew and pursued the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).¶34
Prior proceeding
Dispute not resolved at the ALC (Central) stage; failure report submitted; matter referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad vide I.D.No.18 of 2002, clubbed with a batch and dismissed on 17.05.2005.¶34
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the common award of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 6470 of 2006.¶34
Prior proceeding
Erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide common order dated 23.06.2014, set aside the common award dated 17.05.2005 and directed the respondent bank to re-engage the petitioner to the same post held prior to termination and consider regularization against substantive vacancies.¶37
Prior proceeding
Respondent bank filed a batch of writ appeals (W.A.No.1357 of 2014 & batch) against the order dated 23.06.2014; the High Court of Telangana, by order dated 20.03.2019, observed that the petitioner's case stood on a different factual footing requiring separate adjudication and directed the Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter independently within five months.¶37
Prior proceeding
Despite repeated approaches to the Industrial Tribunal following the High Court's directions, the petitioner's case remained unheard due to administrative and procedural delays, prompting the present writ petition.¶38